BABU JHALAK PRASAD SINGH Vs. PROVINCE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs are zamindars holding a permanently settled estate in the district of Patna in this Province.

(2.) On 17 March 1989, a notice was served on them by the agricultural income- tax authorities of this province under Section 17(2) and other sections of the Bihar Agricultural Income-tax Act calling upon them to make a return of their agricultural income for the previous year to enable an assessment to agricultural income-tax to be made. The plaintiffs have declined to make such a return and claim that the provincial agricultural income-tax authorities have no power to call for such a return. The present suit has been filed claiming declaratory relief to that effect.

(3.) The suit was originally instituted in the Court of the first subordinate Judge, Patna. The points involved are difficult and of very great importance and with the consent of all the parties the case was transferred to this Court for hearing and disposal. In view of the importance of the case to all persons interested in agriculture in this Province, this Special Bench has been constituted to hear the matter. In para. 1 of the plaint, it is stated that the plaintiffs are zamindars holding a permanently settled estate. Then follow a number of paragraphs purporting to describe the position of zamindars before and after the Permanent Settlement Regulation (Regn. 1 of 1793). In para. 6 it is said that the Permanent Settlement Regulation is an Act of Parliament, and in para. 7 it is pleaded that as the Bihar Agricultural Income-tax Act is repugnant to a Governor-General's Act OP a Parliamentary Statute and purports to alter the character of the permanent settlement the previous sanction of the Governor. General was necessary to the introduction of the bill in the Legislature and further that the bill should have been reserved for signification of His Majesty's pleasure. In para. 8 it is stated that the Bihar Agricultural Income-tax Act directly infringes the rights granted by Regn. 1 of 1793 and as it repeals either directly or indirectly such regulation it is ultra vires. In para. 9 it is pleaded that the Bihar Agricultural Income-tax Act is ultra vires as the previous sanction of the Governor under Section 299, Government of India Act, 1935, and of the Governor-General under Section 108(2)(b) of that Act was not obtained before the introduction of the bill beforer the local Legislature. In para. 10 it is stated that the powers given in Art. 41, List II, Schedule 7, Government of India Act, 1935f enable the Provincial Government only to tax agricultural income from estates other than those permanently settled. In para. 11 the fact that return was demanded from them by the income-tax authorities is stated and in para. 14 it is said that the necessary notice under Section 80, Civil P.C., was served on 18 April 1939, on the defendants, the Provincial Government, through the Collector of Patna. The reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs are as follows: (i) That the Court be pleased to declare that the Provincial Legislature of Bihar has or had no jurisdiction to enact the Bihar Agricultural Income- tax Act (Act 7 of 1938) and the Bihar "Agricultural" (Amendment) Act (Act 5 of 1939) imposing agricultural tax on estates settled under Permanent Settlement Regulation 1 of 1793 so long as the said regulation stands unrepealed, (ii) That the Court be further pleased to declare that the Bihar Agricultural Income-tax (Amendment) Act (Act 5 of 1939) being repugnant to the Permanent Settlement Regn. 1 of 1793 and other cognate Regulations of 1793 and to other existing Indian laws are ultra vires of the Provincial Legislature in that they seek to impose agricultural tax on permanently settled estates and are not binding on and wholly ineffective against the plaintiffs or other estates and that any act done under these Acts by any officer including the issuing of and serving of notice on plaintiffs under Secs.17(2) and 30 of Act 7 of 1938 and also assessment of agricultural income-tax, as aforesaid is without jurisdiction illegal, invalid and ineffective, (iii) That the Court be pleased to grant the plaintiffs any other relief to which they, in the opinion of the Court, be entitled to get.